Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Collado 259 A.D.2d 626

← Cases

People v. Collado

259 A.D.2d 626 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1999-03-15 English

Contents

Majority

p. 626
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arecio Collado, Appellant.
[687 NYS2d 645]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal solicitation in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record in this

p. 627
case does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ). In his attempt to establish the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263 ), the defendant relied solely on the number of Hispanic jurors challenged. It is incumbent upon the party mounting a Batson challenge to “articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed” (People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553 , 554). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, we find that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001 ; People v Moría, 245 AD2d 468 ; People v Vidal, supra).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cases cited